amnesty in america today, it's not virtual, it's literal, the president created it. i'm not suggesting the previous presidents did a good job of enforcing the law but they didn't manufacture immigration law out of up the air. but this one did he created it. now senators and members in this house also are advocating that there is ke e-- that there is de facto amnesty and the only thing we can to is conform the laws to the amnesty the president has manufactured out of thin air. that's the same thing as conforming this congress to an order by the supreme court. this congress is the final answer on this. whether it's a disagreement with the supreme court, whether it's a disagreement with the executive branch, the house and the senate operating together envisioned by our founding fathers would be, we'll sort this out, if we have to in the end, when there's a constitutional clash, and a tug of war, that is sorted out by the people expressing their judgment at the ballot box. that's how you eventually

resolve serious constitutional crises. so so we have a constitutional serious concern. i'm not to the point where we say it's a crisis at this point, but, mr. speaker, the president has conferred de facto amnesty, he's confird literal, factual amnesty, and now we have people that can't think through this actually so they declare we have to conform with the president's will, wish, or whim. i suggest, no, we have a lot of ways to he restrain the president and i will not go into that today, but i do want to talk about how badly, how poor a decision it is to declare that all people in the united states illegally can stay here. let's take them at a felony. are those three mysterious misdemeanors that can't be identified at this pount, or those who have been deported apply to come back in. if you're not guilty of a felony of some kind, we'll bring you back to america.

that's the really we didn't mean it clause. and the third one is all of those here after the deadline and who can get here after the deadline, never fear, because there is no one who has not -- no one who has not committed a felony nor not committed those three serious -- mysterious misdemeanors who is going to be subject to removal from the united states under this president or under the gang of eight's bill. that's what we are dealing with. so, the rule of law which is the quor issue here-- core issue here, it is an essential pillar of american exceptionalism, is under asought by -- assault by people in the senate and house and the president of the united states, obviously, who has blown a great big hole in it by his own executive action. the rule of law. all those people that are sitting around in the countries of the world that are inspired by the statue of liberty that want to come here, many of them are subject to an arbitrary no rule of law where they can be stopped and fricked in the

streets and where the -- frisked in the streets and the police can squeeze some dollars out of you whether you got a speeding ticket. they don't think they get justice in the courts in the world. they don't have freedom of speech. they don't have freedom of religion. and they want to come here because we have everyone is equal under the law. remember the statue -- statute, . speaker, tricky to say statue here, i'm talking about a statue of lady justice. she's holding the scales of justice. and these scales are balanced. they are even. you see the pots hanging from the chains on either side. and generally when you see her she's wearing a blindfold. because we have equal justice under the law in the united states. the image of lady justice also retracts -- attracts good people to come to america because they understand the image of the statue of liberty says, freedom.

the lamp of liberty shining bright for all who will come here legally. and lady justice, blindfolded, equal justice under the law, for everybody under the law here in the united states. but to waive the law and give people a pass and to grant them a path to citizenship for what is their one virtue that they have? they have access under this thing to all of the welfare systems and benefits we have in the united states of america today. i have to do this little quiz test. if it were -- if it were fill in the blank, most members of the congress wouldn't get this right. there are more than 80 different means tested federal welfare programs in the united states. more than 80. and 100 years ago, let's just say at the turn of the previous century, we didn't -- we were not a welfare state. when people came here to america and shuffled across the great hall at ellis island, where my

grandmother did, i know the exact date she did that, i believe i stood in the same spot where she did, when they came here they had to show they had a means to support themselves. they were physically healthy enough to work. and able to. and they were checked physically to see if they were -- happened to be transmitters of contagious diseases at the time. even though they were filtered and checked and sorted before they boarded the ship on the european side of this generally, when they arrived at ellis island there still were 2% that didn't meet the evaluation and they were sent back to their home country. still after the filter was put in place and they arrived here, 2% got put back on the boat and sent back again because we wanted to have a country then, we were a rational country then, we had an immigration policy designed to enhance the economic, social, and cultural well-being of the united states of america. what's wrong with that, mr.

speaker? every other country that i know has a policy like that. i met with the canadians yesterday and i asked them, could i immigrate to canada? could i meet the standards? they were diplomats so they didn't exactly say, no. but i asked them a whole series of ways, and they absolutely could not say yes unless i married a canadian. now, not likely to do that. i have been married for 40 years and i'm happy with the wife i have. by the way i love living in the united states. and having an opportunity to try to turn this country into an even better place. here's the standard that they have. they give you points up there for -- they want you to be young. they want you to have language skills. that means speak english. they want you to have some capital. some education. and some job skills, earning capacity. those are the criteria that will they use in canada. these are also similar to the criteria in the united kingdom

and australia. no one has the massive immigration -- even as a percentage of their population that we have here, i've sat on the immigration committee for more than 10 years. i have gone to hearing after hearing. i have gone through reams of documents and reports and studies. here's some of the under oath testimony from just a few years ago. under our legal immigration policy if you're going to measure the merit of the applicants to legal immigration into the united states, and you scored according to the merits of the individual applicant, ly between 7% and 11% of our legal immigrants are even scored on their ability to contribute to america. all of the rest of them are coming through on something that doesn't have anything to do with their ability to contribute to his society. 83% to 89% of legal immigrants are going to come on something

other than merit. family reunification, asylum, visa lottery program to give you a few. that's legal. not counting the illegal which is 40% visa overstays, 60% illegal border crossings. what kind of a country would turn its borders over to anybody that could cross them and turn over its legal immigration system to 89% to 93% something other than some way of measuring how they contribute to this country? so the evaluation is this, they must conclude, people on that side, people in the senate, too many people on this side, that every individual has equal ability to contribute to our society. that's not true. robert representative-electer of the heritage foundation gave a presentation of his study yesterday morning. more an hour. it was riveting. i have the executive summary of that here, mr. speaker, and i have gone through this carefully before his presentation so i was

up to speed. here's the point that he made and i have made this point in the congressional record as recently as this week, that libertarian approach to this is, just let labor decide how it's going to move across borders that goods and services and capital should all flow the same way that we should have an open borders policy so that if business needed labor, they could attract it from anywhere and put it to work wherever they wanted to, the free flow of labor just like the free flow of capital or free flow of materials or finished goods. now, friedman made it very clear that an open borders policy cannot coexist with a welfare state. and that state that we had back at the turn of the previous century that my grandmother arrived here within, we were not a welfare state. we were a meritocracy. the statue of liberty meant something then and it meant you had access to, god-given

liberties, constitutional defined liberties, and that you could -- you have the chance to achieve all you could achieve, succeed all you could succeed, and be able to keep a reasonable share of the fruits of your labor. by the way that took place also before we had an income tax, mr. speaker. no welfare state, no income tax, meritocracy, 2% got september back because they didn't meet the standards of being able to sustain themselves in this society. i would think there would be a few that came through that didn't also that made their way through, but in 1900 there was no welfare state, there was no income tax, and we had an immigration policy that was large and it was so large and the numbers were so great even then when we needed both skilled and unskilled labor back before we had the, let me say the technical development that we have in our economy today, we did need those laborers then, we needed people to work on farms,

we needed people to build railroads and construct our roads and our highways. today the united states of america, the highest unemployment rates that we have are in the lowest skilled jobs. so when you see double-digit unemployment, go find the job that requires the least amount of skills, and i can point to you that would be the highest amount of unemployment. so what kind of a nation in its right mind would want to then increase the numbers of the people who are more likely to be unemployed and further suppress the wages of people in those job categories, those low and unskilled job categories, further suppress those wages, when we are living in a welfare state that has to sustain these families that cannot possibly earn their own way in this society. culture has changed. the economy has changed. because it's changed we should be keeping up with what has taken place and understand that it's different today than it was in 1900.

for the most part this congress acts like, everybody that came here as a contributor to our economy and society so there's no limit to the amount of people who should come here. i ask them sometimes how many people should be coming into the united states legally and illegally all together? what would your annual limit be? would you cap that somewhere along the line? what should the population of the united states be? next decade? next generation? next half a century? they cannot answer that question. they will not answer that question. in fact, in a hearing at ellis island on that year i mentioned about, i believe that was 2007, april 15, they had a person come testify as an expert witness to explain to us how it works that because baby boomers are getting older and they will be accessing the retirement benefits of social security and medicare, that we needed to import a lot of people into america to pay that social security. and so that was the argument of

the demographer. it was also the argument of the economist if i remember right he was one of the leading economists out of stanford university. i asked each one of them, what is the op tim mum demographic profile by decade or generation, what should the size of the population be? is that a perfect column when you stack them each decade of population up? is it perfect? the demographer hadn't thought about what was optimum. he came to tell us what we needed to do which was import a lot of people to pay into our social security and medicare because at some point it would go the other direction. we know that. it will go bankrupt. so the economist, as i remember from stanford. made the argument also that we can't sustain social security and medicare unless we import a whole lot of people because our birth rate has been going down. so i asked him the obvious question that, mr. speaker, i'm confident you would be asking yourself right now, that is who is going to pay for the social

security and medicare of those people that we would bring in to pay for ours? what's the solution for the next generation? and the answer i got was, essentially, that there wasn't an answer for that. that's a problem for the next generation to deal with. this is a generational issue, mr. speaker. and it has a lot more to do with how -- what america looks like next generation and the next generation than it does about what happens here in the next decade. now, it's curious the senate bill scored as it might be is one that -- i have heard the report of doug that it's going to be an economic boost to our -- you heard that from the gang of eight. it's curious that why do they get this out 13 years? why do the -- those who would be legalized under amnesty on the 13th year, then they become citizens? it's because they will have access to the welfare state at that period of time.

it gets us past the budget windo of 10 years so they don't have to account for what it really does. robert representative-electer accounts for what it really does. tiss numbers are appalling. he has the most he refined and careful study that's ever been done on this. i would take issue with anyone in the gang of eight that show this is as a plus and tell you you have to calculate this for the lifetime of the people affected by it because if it's a net cost, it's a net cost. they'll draw down, mr. speaker, i believe i wrote that number down, i know the net number but the net number is this. they will draw down a little over $9 trillion in benefits, pay something like $3 trillion in taxes and there is a net cost to legalizing here in america of $6. trillion other their lifetime.

$6.3 trillion. these numbers are broken down and i have looked at the rector studies in the past and i know this man. he would not leave himself exposed to a legitimate mathematical calculation or criticism and i haven't been able to find people who can lever one against his numbers. but that's the general numbers. here's a statement that is in here that is worthy of putting into the congressional record, mr. speaker. and it's this. he says, speaking of the universe of the 11 million, which i believe more than doubles if this bill becomes law. he says, at every stage of the life cycle, and he means that of this universe of 11 million, at every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants on average generate fiscal deficits that being, that would be benefits that exceed taxes, unlawful immigrants an onch are always tax consumers.

they never once generate a fiscal surplus that can be used to pay for government services elsewhere in society. this situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty. that statement stands, it stands clear and it stands strong and it stands true in every single year of their presence in this country. so the argument that this is an economic thing we must do, and i hear republicans say, because there's work americans won't do. i've done a lot of work some americans won't do but i've never found work i won't do. i've never found work my sons won't do or work this our construction crews won't do. we are there taking care of some of the things that some have to do. and it's legal people that are doing the work for our company, which i have sold to my oldest son several years ago. i've had them out working in temperatures that were 126 degrees heat index.

i've worked out there. i've worked in two days in a row when it was 60 below windshield driving sheet piping because it was freeze, we didn't have to map the drag line. we worked in 160-degree range heat index, coal index, and i hear, it grates on me to hear somebody say there's work americans won't to. as americans we are not too good to do any kind of work that's necessary to do. we might be a little too smart to do some of that kind of work for too little money and too little benefits and when we plug the labor supply into the no and low-skilled job, that lowers the wages, lowers the benefits and reduces the number of americans, pushes them out onto our welfare state. so, for example, a study that i read several years ago that was done in a residential areas of milwaukee, they went in and surveyed a 36-square-block

area, six blocks by six blocks, went into every home and interviewed them and measured the type of, the family that was there, ages, jobs they did, etc. in 36 square blocks, this was a neighborhood of milwaukee where people, african-americans that had moved up from the gulf in the 1930's at the end of prohibition, to take the jobs in the breweries and those things that were economically developing in the milwaukee area at the time, good jobs, they moved up there for good jobs, bought homes in the neighborhood, raised their families there and three generations later, from say 1930's until the late 1990's, when i read this report, they had gone from a good work ethic and mobile family that move ffered a good job and set up their homes there to where there wasn't a single employed male head of household in the entire 36-block residential area and the article i read was -- lamented that we couldn't bring jobs to them. so what kind of free market society, don't they believe in

the free flow of labor and capital? can't people at least within the united states go to find a job? they believe we should move jobs to people rather than let people move to jobs. why don't people move to jobs? because we're a welfare state. because we have 80 different means-tested welfare programs here in this country. 0-plus means tested programs. if you'll pay sm, steve moore wrote this years ago when he was with cato, this isn't an exact quote but i'll get the theme down. he said if you pay people not to work, they won't work. if you pay women to have babies, they'll have babies. if you pay them more to not have a man in the house, there won't be a man in the house. he may come back to visit but he won't live there. whatever you pay them to do, they will do. there is no one in this congress and i would charge, no one in america, who can give you the list of those 08

different means tested programs from memory which i think proves that there's no one that understands how all these 80 programs interrelate with each other, or how people act or react because of those programs. it's just one bleeding heart decided this was a good idea and got to put into the law and another one manufactured that one. ow we have a jigsaw program of welfare programs, and now we have those who advocate for the welfare state who advocate for open borders. why do they to that? i'll go back to ted kennedy's statement, some say report to be deported, i say report to be made american citizens tavepls political equation for those on the left, they understand they get vote out of this deal. the people who get to vote out of this deal will know who that vote for. i talked to those who saw their citizenship process accelerated in 1996, a million people got

moved into early naturalization process in that period of time. i talked to people that were beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty act. they all understood where the political leverage was in this. the people in the 1986 amnesty act said, it was good for me, good for my family, i think we ought to give toyota everybody. people in 1996 who had their citizenship accelerated, they knew it was implied who they were to vote for in the re-election in 1996. we've seen as african-americans have been moved into a monolithic voting block. part of that is, let's see, i'll just suggest this, mr. speaker, that the people on the other side of the aisle understand how to divide people down their lines of race, thnicity, national origin, the biggest victimology, convince

people they're victim and convince them the man is oppressing them and the only way to get even is income redistribution so they push for higher tax rates and more wealth redistribution, which discouraging the entrepreneur and the worker and now there's a public discussion about whether it's smarter to work or collect welfare because the welfare dollars go up higher and the reward for moderate skills even, let alone the no skilled jobs, gets lower and the competition for those jobs gets greater by those in the united states illegally, who are living on less than it takes to sustain them and they are all accessing benefits. that's all in this report, mr. speaker. so from my perspective, i'd like to have a network of support systems to keep people from falling through the cracks. i'd like to have a welfare system a food stamp program, a way to help people out so we can bridge them over through the hard times. i'd like to have them do welfare to work again. there was only one of those 80 means tested welfare programs

that was actually welfare to work. that was tanf. temporary assistance to needy families. what happened? the president of the united states waived the work requirement. arbitraryly, unconstitutionally, specifically written into the bill that it couldn't be waived, he waived it anyway and said we're not going to enforce the work requirement in the one single welfare program of the 80 that actually required work. a lot of people think that welfare was transformed and people on it are required to move toward work. no. unless the states have a way they're doing that in a more effective way than i'm hearing about. federal government there's no longer a work requirement. there's an incentive not to work and we're watching more and more families become the second and the third and maybe even the fourth generation who have lived on these programs and -- where do they learn their work ethic? where do their children learn their work ethic? who is pushing them, who is showing them the rewards of

being indust res you and productive and creative and the response -- responsibility we have to the broader society. we each have a little cell in a giant spread sheathe, that spread sheathe has millions of cells, we have skills, god-given gifts, yes we're a product of genes and environment and the product of that together makes us who we are. but we have a responsibility to contribute to society the broader society and understand where we fit in that giant spread sheathe and we have a responsibility to work, earn, save, invest, and leave this world a better place than it was when we came. hopefully, raise our children with those values to be even stronger and even better than the values we were raised with. this huge hammock that used to be a safety net we call the welfare system is eroding them. the contempt for the rule of law that spills out of the debate in the united states

senate and here in the house of representatives, erodes our american way of life. how to we think that we can move america beyond a shining city on the hill to another level of our destiny at an altitude higher and better and clearer and more pure and more indust res you and more productive with more freedom and a better example for western judeo christiandom if we are going to continue to reward people for not contributing to that value in their single cell in that spread sheet of over 300 million americans. we've got a responsibility, use these gifts that we have, let's go to work, let's strengthen our values, let's strengthen our family, let's protect the rule of law, not tell ourselves that there's an -- a goal here of political expediency that somehow because a couple of -- a couple of talking heads woke up the morning after the election and concluded that if mitt romney had just not said self-deport we would be the president of the united states

today and now we have to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill to send a message to start a conversation so that in the next election or some subsequent election a republican can win a national election again. who comes to that conclusion? there's no data out there to support that. that's simply a belief that has been created and it's self-perpetuate bug it cannot sustain itself when you look at exit polls, when you look at public survey polls. yes, i know a good number of people that they're talking about. and i know people who are here legally and illegally. who are good, strong, they've got a good work ethic, good entrepreneurs, good family people. thive got values that are a credit to the united states of america. they broke the lew to get here. they have values that are a credit to our country. i know some of them and i see those faces. i can see them in my mind's eye and i can see it in the children that come to our schools. there's a school in my district that's 85% minority.

65% of them came to school on their first day not speaking english. and -- it's never the kids' fault. it's never their fault. it's our fault. it's the fault of the adults that are supposed to be running this country, protecting and restoring the rule of law. that's the respow -- that's the responsibility. but this is not going to be fixed by the legislature. it's not going to be fixed by the united states congress. we can't pass a promise to enforce the borders and trade it off for perpetual amnesty and think somehow we've got a deal that's going to make this a better country and we can restore the rule of law. we cannot. the only way to restore the rule of law is to enforce the law. the president has decided he has refused to enforce the law and it makes it clear to me and it should be clear to everybody in this country that's watching this issue that this is not a legislative problem. the legislature cannot fix the problem that is of the president of the united states' making in his refusal to abide

by his own oath of office and take care that the laws are faithfully enforced. and so it is an executive branch problem, we can do some things to rein him in but it's difficult with the majority and the senate being run by harry reid. so practically speaking, it's this, mechanic. -- mr. speaker. it's up to the american people they feel american people have to be well-informed. they will draw good judgments when they're well-informed. the american people need to speak up, i hope the american people don't need to rise up. to answer this and say, our ancestors came here, we came here, we followed the law, we got in line according to the law, we didn't ask for amnesty, we went forward and received our naturalization papers after we had met those qualifications. i've spoken at a good number of naturalization ceremony, it's a very rewarding experience to do

so. the people who came here the right way, who followed the laws, are the ones who respect our laws today. the people that had disrespect for our laws, if they're rewarded for breaking them, how much respect will they have for any of our other laws? will they be like the president to pick and choose the law that he likes? i suggest, no, lady justice is blind. not only blind, doesn't matter what economic status or what cultural status you might be or how much influence you might have in your community. justice is blind. before the law. also, we need to make sure that all laws are applied to all of us equally and we don't exempt people from them, reward them for brecking them. in fact, robert rector put it this way, i believe, he said, everyone who would be fwiven amnesty under this, the 11 million that i think is 20 million or more, their only claim to all these welfare benefits an the benefits of living in american society and civilization is, their only claim is that they broke our

law. so the definition of amnesty, mr. speaker, is this, to grant someone amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. . that's what amnesty is. the proponents of the 844-page bill, the gang of eight in the senate and secret committee in the house, they understand that. that's why they keep denying their bill is amnesty. there is no rational analysis that says otherwise, mr. speaker. and so i urge the american people through my counsel with you in this speech to take a good look at the representative-elector study, heritage -- the representative-elector -- the rector study, the heritage foundation did it, dated may 6, 2013, that good study will inform a lot of americans.

we are going to have another immigration debate. and i'm going to suggest that the american people in their sound judgment will come down on the side of the rule of law, the constitution, and what's good for the best long-term interest of america, the best economic social and cultural benefit of the united states of america, with passion and with compassion, for all people, who should live with god-given dignity. mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: yet is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on

these officers know what kind of work they're doing and i think just as a matter of my understanding, of my 15 years in the department of justice, we need to have them being

participants in this, it might even compromise to some degree their independence as they investigate and prosecute, perhaps, an i.c.e. or border patrol agent who violates the law. so i think that's what i would say about it. i think if you ask any law officer who has been trained, all their basic training teaches them how not to violate civil rights. how to conduct themselves in a professional way. so it sort of suggests that we don't trust them, that this group of politicians in washington now have got to have the civil rights division start setting their own guidelines and standards about how to do their work. i think most law officers would be offended and feel like they had been disrespected in their professional -- and their professionalism questioned by his. >> i understand, it's not a

question of civil rights division setting the policy, it's the question of the secretary of homeland security issuing the policy to the secretary in consultation with civil rights but it would certainly be the secretary of homeland security issues the policy frankly, if i was secretary of homeland security i might be able to issue it. the kind of policies people are going to use force, i want to ensure that i do it in such a way that the -- that they follow those policies, that they're protected, that they can say, we followed the procedure. i think this is as protective of the law enforcement people as anything else in guaranteeing their professionalism and their trust worthiness. buzz of that, i just wanted to explain why i would oppose it but obviously i can only speak

for myself. >> i thank the chair for sharing that. and i would say it a little differently. i don't think you can provide protection, i think it muddles the responsibility between the divisions, the division could even make it a lawyer might question a prosecution or nonprosecution by saying the people prosecuting the case told you to do that. i think it should be a more -- i think there should be more clarity between the divisions and response -- responsibilities are different and normally you expect law enforcement agencies to set its rules of engagement just like the mill tear does. >> does the senator wish for roll call? >> no. >> ok. >> well, yes, i would, mr. chairman. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> no. >> no. >> no.

>> no. >> mr. blumen that will. >> no, by trocksy -- by proxy. >> aye, by proxy. >> aye. >> no, by proxy. > aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> the vote is seven yays, eight nays. >> the amendment fails. senator, you have an amendment you wish to call up? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment i'd like to call up is one that just in broadest terms would prohibit

demonstrably dangerous deportation practices. since 2010, sections of the u.s.-mexican border have seen a significant spike in the presence of criminal organizations which have targeted migrants for extortion and kidnapping and sometimes in the absence of a payoff even for murder. in current deportation practices, some of them that are aimed at disrupting smuggling rings, at least ostensibly, needlessly endanger the lives of those being repatriated by deporting wives, husbands, and children to separate an often dangerous when i questioned secretary to paul towne know about the program, which splits up migrant families, she said it was justified by a need to break up smuggling rings. my view is there are tiny and east along the border and dhhs

has no evidence that the program reduces reentry. there are studies i would like to cite, one from the university of michigan, one from the university arizona, returning migrants hundreds of miles from where they entered the united states has no impact on repeated border at tense. the practice of nighttime deportation to dangerous locales i think violate basic human rights and dignity and our international agreements that guarantee the safe repatriations. my amendment would and the unnecessary and wasteful practice of lateral repatriation and deportations present a risk to alien safety. it contains an exception for compelling governmental

interest. facilitates voluntary repatriation into the country. >> may i respond to that amendment? as i understand the amendments, it essentially eliminates the alien transfer exit program used by customs and border protection. this is the ongoing program which moves mexican nationals apprehended on one portal patrol sector to another before removing them to mexico? >> it places boundaries on the is a bad practice. compellinges a governmental interest. reduction inn a recidivism. remained in place. this would place limits on the use of a practice that i think

the studies show have not affected recidivism, repeated efforts to come in to the united states, but puts migrants being returned at real risk, break up families, and has now demonstrated specific impact on recidivism. >> go ahead. >> if i can ask the senator a right now because of the number of unaccompanied minors coming across the border, there are an adequate detention facilities in some locations to actually keep them in the proximity to where they came across the border. with this prohibit the transfer of the unaccompanied minor to another facility and an exit to another part of the border? >> i do not believe it would

because that is not an intentional effort to break up the family and repatriate hundreds of miles away at night into dangerous sectors. this is accommodating that absence of a corporate detention facility. nothing prevents immediate deportation back across the most proximate port of entry between the united states and mexico, which is the most frequent means of repatriation. it tries to put boundaries around the intentional realignment of a family cannot break up of a family, and forcing them back hundreds of miles away under timing and location conditions that put migrants' safety at risk. >> why would the border patrol do that? intentional policy, as i understand it, that makes it more difficult to attempt crossings into the united states, and the stated goal was

an expectation that by repatriating migrants hundreds of miles away they would break up coyote that marks. the reality, and you have a better basis in fact and i do, that there are coyotes operating everywhere along the border that migrants are forcibly repatriated. it makes them more likely to be at risk when they are returned to place where they have no connections, no resources, and at a time of day and place that is dominated by violence and criminality. they are then more likely to be preyed upon case. -- preyed upon by coyotes. >> senator flake and i have worked together to find a common plath that would deal with his understandable and expressed concerns about it. my concern is not to have dhhs needlessly spend resources and

plays migrants in danger when this does not affect national immigration security's. we have not resolve our differences, but i am willing to withdraw the amendment if senator flake and i can continue to work together to see if there can be some progress made on this. >> a question from senator flake? >> i appreciate the gentleman's concerns here, and he comes with all the right motives and trying to fix the problem. when i meet with the border patrol i hear the same things they tell you, break up smuggling rings. they believe it is effected, but i can see some of the concerns you have that need to be a stressed. that would certainly be welcomed by me, we can withdraw it, and work together. >> thank you, if we could work together -- >> if i could make one comment that may or may not be helpful.

if i understand these units, they deter smugglers from being reunited with the people who would help them recross the border. they take them and transfer them to a difference sector so they cannot quickly interface with a group on the other side of the border. >> i understand that argument. my concern is the timing and location of where they have been forcibly repatriated. that would also place them at real danger. >> the amendment has been withdrawn. i appreciate the cooperation of the senators. >> one quick point. if you say do not deportee a dangerous place, that is flexible and much of mexico could be regarded as a dangerous place. you have got to refine that. will recess, go to vote. there's only one vote pending.

we would do that, come back, and then take up the blumenthal the amendment. we stand in recess. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the senate judiciary committee marking up immigration legislation, taking a break to head over the senate chamber, as the senators are voting on judicial nominations today. the bipartisan compromise known as the gang of eight includes a pathway for citizenship for 11

million on authorized immigrants and tighten security along the nation's southwest border. 200 amendments are being marked up during this session. way wehe spread is under will listen to house speaker john boehner earlier today, and he called on the white house to release emails on the benghazi consulate attack. >> good morning, everyone. i hope you tune into yesterday's hearings on the tragedy in benghazi. we learned that on september 12, the day after the attacks, and four days before susan rice 's tv appearances, a senior state department official emailed curse appears to relay the libyan ambassador -- she had

told the libyan ambassador that the attack was conducted by islamic terrorists. the state department would not allow our committees to keep copies of this e-mail when it was reviewed. i would call on the president to order the state department to release this email said the american people can see it. we also know the white house continues to claim it only made stylistic changes to the talking points used by susan rice. ignoring the fact that senior white house officials directed the changes be made to those talking points. our committee's interim report says specific emails were the white house and state bar but insisted on removing all references to the terrorist attack to protect the state department from criticism for providing inadequate security.

while a few of our members were able to review these emails, they were not allowed to keep them or to share them with others. i would call on the president to release these unclassified entered-agency emails said the american people can see them. last november the president said he would be happy to cooperate with congress in any way that congress wants. this is his chance to show his cooperation so we can get to the truth of what happened. four americans lost their lives in this terrorist attack. congress will continue to investigate this issue using all resources at our disposal. esther de the leader announced the house will vote next week on repealing the president's health care law. the law should be repealed because it is increasing the cost of health care, reducing

access to quality health care, and frankly, it is making it much more difficult for small employers to hire workers. this morning senator mcconnell and i informed the white house that we will not submit any names or recommendations for individuals to serve on the individual payment advisory board, ipad shui college here. 15s is the board with unaccountable individuals who have the authority to deny seniors access to care. the american people do not want the federal government making decisions that doctors and patients should be making. we should repeal the entire law that created this board and enact a step-by-step common- sense approach to health care that starts with lowering costs. today the president is on another job store, or

as the media it describes it, his latest pivot back to jobs. the obama administration of promised if it's stimulus plan was enacted, the unemployment rate would be approximately 5%. the unemployment rate is at 7.5%. what the president does not understand is is his policies that are undermining economic growth and job creation. i ran a small business. it is no surprise to me that the economy is struggling. we have had for years of slow, , the emirate -- anemic economic job growth. america needs robust economic growth and job creation. republicans have a plan to get our economy moving again. you do not see us pivoting back to it every few months. it was are focused long before i became speaker. whether it is making our tax

code fairer, reining in with red tape, repealing the health care law that is making it harder for small businesses to higher economic growth remained our biggest focus. these are some of the common- sense solutions that we would deliver that we do believe would create more economic growth and jobs in our country. slow growth cannot become the new normal. speaker, why is it not a waste of time to vote on health care repeat when last congress voted 30 times to repeal all or part of the health-care law, and you are in the same place where you were in the last congress. it will not be repealed. >> we have new members that have not had the opportunity to vote on the president's health care law. they have been asking for an

opportunity vote on it, and we will give it to them. >> they get their opportunity to vote on it, but the more than 30 times you have done this, do you want to be keep doing this, because your base demanded that, or would you rather be doing other things that could pass? >> you have heard me talk about this more than once. obamacare will drive up the cost of health care, drive up the cost of health insurance, and make it harder for small businesses to hire workers. i believe that at the core of who i am. i would do everything i can to make sure that we do not wreck the best health care delivery system the world has ever known. >> you have called this the law of the land -- >> that happens to be the fact. i want to repeal the law of the land. is that clear? >> >> instead, you could work

on amending the current law -- >> i do not believe there is a way to fix it and make it acceptable to the american people. you think you will find or should the american people if you do get the email, the answers on the talking points of what in all candor is your goal here? >> the goal here is to get to the truth. for americans lost their lives. their families want to know the truth. the american people want to know the truth. and i believe it is congress' obligation to get the truth. we have to make sure the situation that they found themselves in does not happen again, and the only way we will understand that is to get to the truth. and understand, the reason this is still under way is because of the white house has done everything possible to block access to the information that would outline the truth. and the question you have to ask

is, why? >> politics? >> the report this week said the kind of immigration reform that the senate is considering would drive up the deficit. the you agree with that? >> i have not reviewed the report or the assumptions in the report, but others have begun to question that. i am anxious to look at the assumptions and understand what it is that they are saying there. >> the you have any thoughts on the immigration bill in the senate? >> i want all these bipartisan amendment, they are very helpful to get in the congress into a position to truly consider both the fixes that are needed to our legal immigration system and how we would deal with the problem of those that are here illegally. i think the bipartisan efforts on the house side continue. they have been very close for

quite a while. chairman goodlatte is scheduling hearings. i want to say this -- the house will work its will on immigration reform. this is an issue that has been around for too long and needs to be dealt with. i intend to see that it is dealt with. >> [indiscernible] demands in terms of raising the debt ceiling. now -- itpoint right seems unclear what position is going to be in terms of the conference this time around. can you explain the difference now [indiscernible] t> we are not any differen place today than they were two years ago. this year the federal government will bring in more revenue than any year in the history of our country, and yet we will still have a $1 trillion budget

deficit. you cannot continue to do this. and so, our conversations have begun. we will have a conversation with our members next week to talk about a way forward. what do our members believe is necessary in order to allow them to vote yes on an increase in the debt limit, but dealing with a long-term structural spending problems we have is at the core of it. we also know we cannot cut our way to prosperity. we need real economic growth. that is why we continue to hear a lot of discussion about tax reform, regulatory reform, that would help us produce more economic growth here in our country. we do both, we can begin to solve this problem. you have five different committees [indiscernible] i am wondering what you have

been communicating to them [indiscernible] and secondly if you're more interested now in special committees? >> i have confidence in the five committees. they understand from me that we have a very serious and solemn obligation to get to the truth of what happened. >> on that point, [indiscernible] besaid he thought it would correct to subpoena former secretary of state clinton on benghazi, admiral marullen [indiscernible] i have confidence in our committees and our chairman to continue to pursue this. i will let them make the decisions about what those nets that are. andought the chairman issa

the members of the committee yesterday did a fabulous job in a very long day of hearings of eliciting more information that frankly we have not had for the last eight months. hearings and more more information. >> you believe the white house is misleading the american public about this talking points that were prepared for susan rice, saying they only made one change? are they lying about that? >> you can characterize it anyway you want, but somebody clearly decided they did not like the references to islamic terrorism. and made changes in this document. the american people deserve the truth, and they will get the truth. thanks. >> boehner finishing up his

briefing at the capitol today. the entire briefing is available online at c-span.org. live pictures from capitol h ill where the senate judiciary committee is marking up legislation, considering some 300 and and it's to their proposal. right now the committee is in a break, allowing lawmakers to vote on judicial nominations. you can watch that both on c- span2. at the end of those votes, we expect the senate to continue to work on a water projects bill, allowing the army corps of engineers to work on a variety of projects. harry reid expects the bill to be finished sometime next week. we have a facebook question

related to immigration -- what are your priorities for immigration reform? here are some of what you had to say. jennifer rosenberg said kill the program entirely. where flooding in and million and giving them our jobs. and jim says strict implementation of the verify for aery employer and employee, system such as this is needed. waiting for the senate's committee hearing on the s.endment while we wait, today's weekly

briefing with nancy pelosi, from earlier today. >> good afternoon. i heard you wanted to hear about our dinner the president last night. anybody interested in that no, just move on then. [indiscernible] last night we had dinner with the president. the democratic leaders. it was a very productive leader in terms of discussion. we talk about jobs, jobs, and more jobs, innovation springing from our own manufacturing in the u.s. mr. or your has taken a lead on making it in america, and that is what we talked about as well. making it in america agenda, which recognizes innovation which begins in the classroom

and also springs from doing manufacturing here at home gary it w. it was interesting because i had the occasion of working with president bush as speaker and leader, and now with president obama. when you are meeting with the president, it is historic every time, leaders and the president, and you respect each of us has the offices that we hold is really important. when president bush was president, and i was leader, or then later speaker, it was always about how can we work together to get something done. here is the president and all the pair that he has and the legislative branch, the first article of the constitution. obviously we had differences. the iraq war, privatizing sector social-- privatizing

severity, but we did everything we could to get things done, the biggest energy bill and our country, mental health parity, we even came to the president's rescue on tarp when his party deserted him, when of the most progressive bill for low-income tax credits and things. you always see opportunity when you see each of the leaders, especially as i say the power of the presidency. r with, having diffenne the president last night drives home all the opportunity that a presidency can bring. we have a president who is knowledgeable on the issues, brings judgment from that spring, from that knowledge, as a clear path how he would like to see things done in a bipartisan way, and again, as the eloquence to communicate with the american people, and all the package of leadership.

and so is sad to see how that opportunity is not exploited really buy our republican colleagues in the majority in the house, because they must have things they care about for our country. the president says to them let's work together on your agenda, but really, nothing is their agenda and never is there a timetable. just sentimental thoughts about having dinner with the president and missed opportunities that we have. instead, we have subterfuge, ridiculous things that were put today on the floor. the pay china first act as we call it, to instead of avoiding default and risk the full faith and credit of the nine states cannot just by having the adding more republican-manufactured crises

and the economic uncertainty as hard american workers and businesses over the past two years. this bill they have on the floor will pay china first before american troops in harm's way, pays china first before retired and disabled veterans, pay china first before doctors and hospitals that treat medicare patients, a china offers before small businesses that work with us to provide goods and services. it is just wrong. and the start of this congress, this congress and then two years before, the republicans, from the start of this congress, they have been calling for regular order. have you ever heard them call for regular order? they say, we have got to have a budget passed the senate, because that is regular order. the senate passed a bill 47 days ago, and all the sun the call for regular order is needed.

even some of their members who paulprofessed -- including rye, who said he wanted to go to the table and get the job done -- i do not know how forceful that is within their caucus, but the fact is let's have regular order, let's go to the table, let's have transparency, that the american people see whose virgin of a budget they prefer -- whose version of a budget paper for, let the chips fall where they may, and stop this sullenness. this silliness, a china first. get serious. the silliness that week -- even two years ago, 22 months ago, when we went through this discussion, we lifted the debt ceiling, but the mere discussion of that lowers our credit rating. we cannot go through that again.

in any event, the hopes that we can put an end to the silliness and get serious, but to the table, appoint conferees. what are they afraid of? they afraid of the public seeing what they have in their budget and how contrasts with the statement of dahlias in the senate budget? but the public see what that is. this weekend, and i hope you remember, to write home, call home, buy presents -- --i am going to try to get see if we can finish section one, called a day and not have to come back tomorrow, so we are striving for that. i understand senator boom in fall --bloom in blumenthal as amendment number 10, is that correct?

>> it is intended to cover what appears to be an enormous gaps in the present requirements or provisions for reimbursement of local and state costs of prosecutions and pre-trial detention. it would apply to situations where there have been violations of law, federal, state, and local law in connection with a place -- with police misconduct and it would provide discretion thehe a turner -- to attorney general to decline reimbursement where there has been such a violation of law in connection with immigration- related apprehensions' or prosecution. to put it bluntly, if a police officer or prosecutor breaks the

law, discriminatory arrest someone, either through racial profiling or some other reason, or whether it is police brutality, the united states attorney general would investigate and conclude that there should be no reimbursement of the cost of local prosecution, even after the federal government declines to take action under the arrest, or other kinds of detention or confinement costs. -- the reasoncent for this amendment is just a gap in the drafting of 744, but i offer it, and i would be happy to take any questions. >> my understanding is in the policemajority of cases, officers and prosecutors do everything right, so they are not affected by this.

what happens when they do not. >> that is correct, mr. chairman. in the vast majority of cases, there will be no violation of law. >> but if they do violate the law, the taxpayers should not be rewarded for that. >> correct. experience and you have been there as attorney general, that before the united states attorney's office takes prosecutions and prosecutes in federal court, they ascertain whether or not the arrest had some impropriety in that. but as you know, sometimes criminals do not always tell the truth about how they are arrested, and they come up with marvelous stories, and the judge, let's say the u.s.

attorney, the prosecutors, all believed it was a good arrest, but it gets dismissed because some of the criminalist testified, what ever, and the judge decides to find the arrest improper. a lot of money has been state to state governments trying to do the right thing. are you sure that punishing the state government is the appropriate response in that circumstance? >> you raise a very important point, senator, and let me address it as best i can, having been there but as the state attorney general and a federal prosecutor, as you have been as well. the federal government would decline prosecution that would not alone mean that the federal government would not reimburse local authorities. even if there were allegations of misconduct, and there are frequently allegations of brutality or other wrongdoing by local or state officials, there would have to be an

investigation, there would have to be a basis, more than just an allegation, a factual basis to decline reimbursement. and that would be discretion given to the attorney general of the united states regarding taxpayer dollars. in no way would local authority's be precluded from going forward with the proper execution if they felt it was justified to do so. -- ofcourse -- well course, local authorities cannot prosecute a federal immigration crime. they can detain someone and turn them over to federal officers if they violated federal law. i just do not and -- there is a joint operation, as you and i have been involved in the state and federal, decides these cases

will go to state court, and somewhere along the line, after a lot of money has been expended, perhaps, with the expectation the federal government would pay, a judge somewhere rules a person -- havet was not proper -- doubts about that policy. i do not see the problem out there today. i am a little uneasy about mandating this. >> the problem arises, number and myf there are laws -- understanding is there are in some states -- that would prevent immigration-related prosecution, either through a self-racy or through a smuggling statute that exists in some state, and the prosecution is continued at the federal government declines. in those cases, where the

federal government declines because of police brutality and we think the amendment needs to be narrowed to apply to those cases involving either misconduct or violations of law that are sufficiently investigated, i would be happy to entertain your suggestions, but the basic purpose is to taxpayerted states dollars going to reward or fund prosecutions where there have been violations of all, substantiated through investigation, by local authorities. >> my understanding is that you are amending your amendment do you have an amendment here to your amendment? >> this is a new draft, which we have worked out with the department of justice and with our colleagues on the committee, and we are distributing it now. >> i can see the senator has given a lot of thought it.

been offered previously. i am also concerned about the standard that the attorney general as reason cause -- reasonable cause to believe in. i will be glad to talk to you about it. >> as my colleague knows, mr. -- ifan, as l.a. respond, i may respond, that is the language used in prosecutorial decisions, so it is not a standard-list term. it is the standard that is applied often in decisions about whether to go forked. i think we can further define it, if you like. , i understand your point. the attorney general should not have unbridled discretion and we do require by implication an investigation independent of the

local investigation. >> i will add one more -- be frank -- another concern. this department of justice has been very hostile to look all law enforcement in -- and any efforts they might take to help enforce federal immigration law, which basically includes detaining someone until they come and pick them up. i was active in helping to establish peace 287 g program, a partnership between state and federal. alabama officers went on to weeks of training to make sure that they did not violate any rights of anyone in enforcing immigration law, and they would have a good relationship with the federal officers. this administration as basically ended that. they basically told local and state law-enforcement they do not want any help, and we have about 600,000 state and local

law officers on the streets every day, and these are the in the drills to come into contact with illegal aliens, whereas the 5000, and many of them have other duties other than enforcement. there's no real presence there. so i am dubious about putting any more restrictions on the states, i understand and respect your amended. >> i understand we have before lumenthal number 10. the ayes have it. senators present. we understand you have an amendment. >> thank you.

i would like to call up the amendment that is numbered cruz 1, and it is a border security men and -- security amendment. as i have expressed today, as a number of the will have expressed, when my greatest concerns about the legislation as it is currently drafted is that its border security provisions are not meaningful, that it relies upon the the department of homeland security a amorphous metrics that is the apartment enormous discretion in determining if and when those metrics are met. as a result, i think if las vegas oddsmakers were laying odds that of the probable the date the department of homeland

security concluding at whatever time it ever can into effect that the border was a dirt under the current bill, the las vegas odds would be greater than 10,000 to 1. it is a virtual certainty because the bill does not have meaningful metrics that actually have bite, it does not have consequence. what this amendment attempts to do is approach the issue with the seriousness with which i think americans would like us to approach it, and it has a number of elements. one is to focus a very significant part on the inputs. measuring output has proven difficult, but the inputs we certainly can measure. what this bill would do is first of all triple the number of border patrol agents on the southern border. there are right now roughly 21,000. it would take it over 60,000 border patrol agents on the myund, boots on the ground,

judgment of the most effective method of securing the border. this amendment would quadruple the cameras, sensors, drones, helicopters, technology, an infrastructure as a brick on the border to actually accomplish the goal of securing the border. right now gao estimates that we are apprehending roughly 60% illegal border crossings, which means 40% are not being apprehended. which puts on the ground, combined with technology, we can and should do much much of edouard in addition to this amendment would require the completion of the u.s. is a entry andh biometric exit systems. that has been mandated in law, and yet the executive branch has not complied with that logaw, that goes to the problem that is quite significant of visa overstays.

requirelly, it would operational control over 100% of the southern border. i would note current statute requires the department of homeland security to measure operational control, and yet secretary napolitano became before this committee and told us that not withstanding the law noat congress had passed, dhs longer measure of operational control. intends to comply with it. this requires that they in fact secure the border it the final piece is getting real teeth to all of these elements, because we have seen this problem over and over again, whether it is with respect operational control or the u.s. is a system of the administration is ignoring requirements and statute. it puts teeth to these requirements. in particular, if dhs fails to

supply with the trigger requirements within three years, the salary,dhs political appointees would be cut, and additionally, 20% of dhs' budget with respect to these border patrol provisions would be put in eight block grant to the states to carry out these functions. it puts a real incentive for dhs to follow the terms of the amendment. if this amendment were adopted, it would go a long, long way to solving the problem of illegal immigration and security of the border. it would improve this bill and a very substantial respect. >> mr. chairman? >> center sessions? amendment kresenator

goes right to the heart of this bill. he fixes two issues. what is the entry-exit system. current law requires eight keys set system, bair metrics, which requires a photograph and maybe fingerprint. but at least a photograph, and that has never been complied with. that is the current law. billark before us, the before us says we only have to have a biographical, which is a social security number or name- type a dedication, not biometric, and the bill before us does not require an exit system at the land borders.

g.a.o. has concluded this does not -- will not work. g a l has concluded that what this law would say is not creating an effective system because you do not know if a person accident at a land border even if they flew in through an airport somewhere. it makes it impossible to identify who overstayed. if we are are to have a lawfulness in the system and 40% of the people are over state, we need to be able to enforce that. it will need some requirement on that. secondly, the triggers in the legislation, my colleagues, do not work, did not have teeth, they do not give us any confidence that the promises made to enforcement at the border or a ever occur. has a multiple number of ways to improve that. i will support his amendment. wantwould fix it, and i'd

to make the point to my colleagues, you can say i have an entry-exit visa system, if you desire, and i guess you have one, but it is less strong than current law, and that one has ever worked. you can say we have enforcement at the border, the toughest ever, whereas the standards and the metrics better utilize at the border have been reduced, and are not as strong as current law, and will create not been more than a flow of illegal immigrants in areas that are not given attention in legislation. i think the senator from texas. he obviously is familiar with the challenges. he probably talk to a lot of constituents, i think the people in the united states share the view, that we can fix the illegality of the border, we really can, which can virtually

eliminate it with the will to do so, and as amendment puts us on that path. >> i appreciate the german for being for. -- i appreciate the gentleman for bringing forward. that is why we provide in the base bill and not of an additional resources. let me give you some idea of what is being talked about here. 3500d in the legislation new customs agents. that is at a cost of about $6 billion, 3500. we're tripling border control. currently at about 21,000, taking it to 60,000. 40,000 new agents. we're talking $30 billion, $40 billion, to do that. that is a substantial sum. it would take a lot of time of border patrol, would take at

least 10 years the to higher, contract, and deploy these resources, 10 years. this says you cannot just anybody to rpi status until this has been achieved. you're talking 10 years before we can bring anybody out of the shadows and deal with that problem that we have. so i appreciate -- and i know is sincere -- the desire to put more resources on the border, but we have fiscal restraints here, and also, some time restraints as well, and i just hope we recognize those as we go forward and vote on an amendment like this, and i appreciate the spirit with which this is bright. nearly all of the amendments are meant to improve the bill and to improve border security, and we need in proved border security. itthink if we look at this, is just probably somewhere we

cannot go. i yield. >> i look at all these things and concerned that it would quadruple the number of cameras, quadruple the number of sensors, quadruple the number of drones, quadruple the number of and 1/5 of all the money that of dhs money set aside for all the states. you have to be a governor from one of the state's, but, senator schumer? >> we all want to strengthen the border. our bill has done more than any bill, but it does it in a smart way. to quadruple the border patrol, when most exports will say that e are mostlace where mos

efficient, we are far more efficient in the air, all the technological advances that frankly many of them were made by the military as we fought in iraq and afghanistan can help secure our borders. i know some people are worried about it, but i think the drones are a tremendous opportunity on the border as well. and so to simply say for us to dictate when we're not the experts, to quadruple border patrol is in my opinion something that you might accuse me of, during money at a probable without knowing what its effect would be. by understand -- the intensity of the amendment. haveuld say the way we proposed, which is relying on the expertise and knowledge that 68% to 82%s from effectiveness in three years, does not work, which turn it

over the people in the states and give them ample resources come up and by the way, where are we going to pay for this? find it somewhere else in the federal government. that is not fiscally responsible, in my opinion. that will make sure we do not pay for it. i have seen amendments like that come up through the years and you do not pay for it. where we are making a real effort to make the deficit down and keep this proposal fiscally neutral, the alternative would blow a hole in it by saying it increases things by $60 billion and find it somewhere. at least there should be responsible lee of delineating what you want to cut and where. we might disagree with that, but to do that, but i appreciate the intent, and i am a border state, but a northern border state, which there are different problems, and i want to see this border shut down. i dislike the legal immigration. i have since i started on this,

and senator graham can tell you, with a lot of flak from some of my office on the left, was picketed a few weeks ago because i am paying attention to the border. i'd want to do all this. let's do it in a smart way, let's do it in a way that is cost-effective, that do it in a way that does not allow hole and a budget, and let the experts decide. if they need 30 drones' instead of 10,000 people on the border, but then decide. asthink this amendment, well intended as it is, and with the same goal that anybody has, regardless of party and ideology, does not to the job and in fact would waste money. one more point, which jeff flake made, this would mean that our rpi's could not become legalized

for a long time, even longer in terms of people becoming citizens. look, if we do not want a pack this is edge, if you did not want to see those working here legally, you will not be for this bill. we know that. that is a slender number of people in the united states, it is not a majority people and certainly a not a majority of americans, but if that is how does, that is how it is. this amendment will not solve that problem. >> the senator from texas has asked for a roll call. the clerk call the roll. [indiscernible] >> aye.

[indiscernible] >> no. [indiscernible] amendment is not agreed to. senator, you have an amendment. >> a queue. hirono amendment number 3. this would allow dhs consider it families in removal, to protect them from trafficking, sexual violence. a number ofhs uses

programs that were for migrants for specialize removal, repatriation, or prosecution programs, and these programs put women and children at risk because these programs often separate families and make migrants or vulnerable by returning them to dangerous places without their families. says nothing to do the ability thedhs to engage in these kinds of proceedings, but this amendment would require them to ask certain questions, such as is the apprehended individual parent, legal guardian, were traveling with a spouse or a child? it discussed a family that is -- this goes to family the ideas that my amendment seeks to

address. families have been separated. there are many examples of my husband and wife to enter the and the husband is transferred to the program and the wife is sent back wherever she is from, generally mexico, without her belongings, no money, and no idea where her husband is. in the streamlined process, we have an example of a woman who undergoes this procedure and she is coming back to the united states because she has children there. jill time for her will not deter her from wanting to reunite with her children. these are examples of the kinds of processes that separate the families and bring more harm than necessary. as i said, this does not have anything to do with doing their

jobs. it is how we want them to do their jobs in the best way possible. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> mr. chairman. understandelieve i what the senator is trying to do here. it looks like her amendment is a lot like the amendment i supported and cosponsored. i think we will have an amendment like that later on. i do not know today or otherwise. senators amendment, i cosponsored. i think it is the right thing to do. it would put a priority on the children affected by immigration. no one likes enforcement actions. they are a necessary part of the law. the enforcement actions often occur at the work waste. that is what i have seen happen in my state. during the enforcement action,

the parents are arrested while the children are in school or under another person posses care. persons care. -- person's care. amendment seeks to do the same thing. her amendment differs in that it deals with detentions and arrests made at the border. this may sound like a minor distinction. from the way i see it, it is .ot to begin pushing due process standards applied to those living in our communities on u.s. soil to others at the border goes further than our constitution requires. that distinction aside, the amendment goes a step further by "quiring that border agents

present any humanitarian concerns. go -- concerns." the whole point is to ascertain people here in the country. the amendment would require tonts to make decisions refer such individuals for prosecution. based upon family unit. -- unity. border stops have some of the highest level of government power. to begin to weaken that authority of border patrol is a slippery slope and could lead to weaken border searches. they already have discretion. the amendment may be taking it

--t too far and i am concert concerned. i think i will vote against it. mr. chairman. senator, i know you're concerned. i have a concern about this. if i read the and then and, read the amendment, somebody has two hours to make the determination. not more than two hours. with all the multiplicity of i am not and issues, sure it can be done within two hours. could you respond, please? i do use the word, as soon as possible. that is reflecting the moment.

two hours. does the senator have another? >> i have no problem with as soon as practicable. not know if you would be willing to delete the maximum of two hours. >> i think it important there be some kind of parameters before these kinds of actions are taken. , you dot do not know not know what the particular circumstance is. then you have got a legal case if it is two hours and 15 minutes, beyond the scope of the law. i do not think you want that. >> no. the intention is to keep families together. four hours would be a more .easonable timeframe i think it is important to have parameters.

>> i do not think it is possible. a senator talked about the amendment. his provides for a 4 -- our timeframe -- a four-our timeframe. four-hour timeframe. >> i respect what the senator is trying to do. we all want these people to be detained in a humane fashion. i think it is impossible for us to know all of the variety of circumstances under which people will be detained coming across the border. and make that decision as senator feinstein said in a short. of time. time.hort period of

if we could work on it, i would be willing to do that. delighted to join in that discussion with the proponent and senator cornman. you have got a small number of border agents dealing with the issue. to sorthave two hours through 40 people whose they do not even know. , i doain the individual not know if it presents any humanitarian concerns. that is totally unmanageable to me. for somethingte that puts our law enforcement officers under that kind of gun without resources to accomplish such a complex mission in such a short amount of time. we have played -- we have

places where people litigate for months and years in the courts. the intention is noble and i would love to work with the proponent on such a measure. of the sameome problem some of my colleagues have mentioned. be said mindit cannot be changed. i do hear my colleagues' concerns. s. sets parameter ofjust strike the maximum two hours. if you make that a motion to delete. >> i make a motion to delete the two hours requirement. >> my understanding, you have amended your amendment. question is on the amendment absent for two hours.

>> that does not solve the basic problems i see with the amendment. when you look at the amendment that was referred to that i am cosponsoring with the senator from minnesota, hers goes a lot broader than what we allow in that amendment. is an entirely different situation when we add on what we see here at the border. i yield the floor. , let me say in think you made a wise decision moving. i have been given a list here of families that have been separated. they have been apprehended coming over the border, no question about it. it would be a violation of our law. the question is what happens next?

as humane as possible at that moment. let's not separate people who are poor and have little command of the english language. let's try to keep these families together. that is a reasonable thing. >> in some sectors of the border, there is not adequate detention facilities for both children and females. i might just ask the senator from hawaii, would it be your intention if there was not where thefacilities individual immigrant was detained and the family had to be separated because there are ,nadequate detention facilities that they could not be separated? how would you handle that? >> the whole intent is to

prevent the kind of separation from spouses and children that we are seeing on a regular basis. if there are physical limitations at the border that prevent this kind of separation from occurring, then it is what it is. this is not a due process. let's get them lawyers, kind of amendment. it is really to be as humane as possible, as my colleague, senator durbin, has concurred with me on. where this kind of discretion can be exercised, let us exercise it in as humane a way as possible and not subject basically women and children to the kind of exploitation that can occur because of our action. this kind of deterrence program that is supposed to deter people,

another part of my bill is to study whether these deterrence programs work. the evidence indicates they do not. have another question. will the senator yield to a question? two questions. one, explain. the border patrol agent in a certain number of hours is going to make a determination on whether this person is repatriated or not? >> i have taken out the --ulation detaining pertaining to a certain number of hours. they will ask, are you a parent, guardian, or child? these are the kinds of things that should be taken into consideration before repatriation. >> my question is about repeat. repatriationbout

is different from a relationship of a mother or father or how you relate to somebody. >> there are consequences to these kinds of actions that we take. dhs from not prevent ultimately repatriating or taking the decision they make. we are simply saying, ask these questions. if you have a choice, as they do, by the way, whether it is to repatriate or not, these families ask those questions. >> there has been a request for roll call. >> mr. feinstein. [indiscernible]

>> the amendment as modified is agreed to. will not ask for a vote on

this. thiser matter i raise, requires collaboration between the immigration officers, including the marine division , with theothers civil rights division ofdoj, -- and it requires the training be done in collaboration, including sections on all aspects of their work. i do not think that is inappropriate delegation of power. the civil rights division has its own duties and responsibilities in developing the training program for law not oneent officers is of them.

they often lecture to law enforcement academies on issues relating to civil rights. would say there has been confusion in this. , remainingforgotten in amazement that the attorney general of the united states said the creating of the mechanism for a path to citizenship is a civil right. i cannot imagine how and what it could mean. at any rate, i want to ask for a vote on it. >> the senator will not be offering it. you have amendment number 11. >> thank you very much. i qualify substitute an amendment to my amendment number 11. >> without objection, the by thent is modified substitute. >> i thank you. chairman, we have worked with

senator slake and mccain to address the concerns to my original amendment. i believe we have reached an agreement on the substitute, which i believe, i hope, has their support. the original version of the amendment redefined the southwest border region from within 100 miles from the border to being within 25 miles to the border. current language defines border within 100 miles of the border. san diego is 15 miles from the border. in thisinal language bill would have the ability to fly drones over most of orange county and its major cities, long beach, and actually up into la county. candidly, there are no restrictions on privacy use of these drones, adequate laws to enforce them, and what we would

do is confined your own use to the border -- drone use to the border itself. it is my understanding, senator, that you are ok with this. >> senator? all those in favor -- understand the intent of senator feinstein's amendment. i sound like a broken record. the border is not the same everywhere. we do not have urban areas 50 miles or 100 miles from the border in texas. indeed, one of the biggest

>> the amendment is 3-2. [indiscernible] >> senator feinstein, do you have another? you seem to have most of the amendments here. do you have another one? [laughter] not want to have to

come back tomorrow. go ahead. >> all right. i would follow-up with with amendment number 10, please. and, mr. chairman, this amendment adds a subsection in section 11-04, title one, to to worke dhs and dot to establish a grant program in atporting infrastructure existing land ports of entry. they improve the infrastructure in and around land ports to crossing due in part to insufficient lanes in and out of the ports, leading the way to the busiest ports to regulate two hours long. >> the amendment is agreed to.

>> thank you. i think that is it. >> anymore? who has the next amendment? >> the amendment to close out title one. does that make sense? >> several people have asked me to schedule. we have six more amendments. i propose we go for the six, then recess for the day. have hadnumber of you to move things on today's schedule. the bells go off because i suggest we might recess? offer yours?o

>> i do not have it. >> you will not offer it? >> at least not now. >> i have been amendment -- i have an amendment. 13416, and i --ndment -- and i am ended and i am ended it -- and i am it. it -- and i ammend one and oneity in

-- in oneon dollars and one half dollars billion -- korean dollars. billion.and -- the compromise will go on, but the men -- the coppermine is also it knowledge is the effect it will have on border communities, cutting people's property, and require dhs to consult with state, local, and community and land owners. we have heard a lot from landowners, as well as

agriculture. [indiscernible] part of that is controversial. chooses to waive otherwise existing laws, they have to specify exactly which laws and why. ,he faster they waive the law they simply say, do not question us, we are the u.s. government, we have waived your laws, but which laws, just so we ?now how to apply they said, none of your business. i move we adopt the amendment. any objection? >> yes. i would like to have a large

vote anyway. -- once we get to the end of these, i would wait all day long. >> you are having a good day. >> do somebody really want to talk about this? go ahead. been seems to me we have talking about border security here all day long. it is the basis of this whole legislation. setare taking $500 million .side >> no. >> there is total of $4.5 billion. >> i hope colleagues will support the amendment because it achieves two important things. you recognize fences need gates.

important in vermont and texas and all border skate -- border states. they have to be able to control legitimate commerce and entry. sometimes, i know people have used shorthand to express their opinions. i have heard people talk about the need to seal the border. that would be a disaster economically for the united states. mexico is our third largest trading partner. canada has a special place economically with regard to the united states economy. 6 million jobs in the united states depend on bilateral trade in mexico alone. our gold should be -- our goal should be to have ports of entry to provide flexibility to the secretary to use the new fencing funding for security upgrades along the border.

i think this does provide flexibility. i will say not every place in the border is the same. go to big bend national park, and you have thousand-foot cliffs, and putting a fence on it is not a solution. it is a border security. people do not try to traverse that part of the border. fencing is a tool, an important is not a panacea or a one-size-fits-all approach. >> senator schumer? >> i will be brief. this is a good amendment, a good improvement, that the chairman and senator have worked out. some places that need a fence and other places that do not.

it is a little different than what senator cruise had proposed. this gives them the flexibility they need to do what is right but provide them with resources to make sure the border is secure. i appreciate the good work you, senator flake, did on this. the chair for wrestling with the issue. we certainly want discretion. noting, every area does need a fence, we do not think, at this time. senator mccain said we should build a fence. i know it was said we should do that. good fences make good neighbors.

where you had total loss on both sides of the border, economic development grew and prospered. i know there are good points to the amendment. i have not fully had time to study it. based on my reading of it, i feel like it goes too far and i would be in opposition. ,> all those who are in favor signify by saying aye. the ayes have it. amendments [indiscernible]

we will go back. >> moving on. >> right on, mr. chairman. you will be pleased. we are moving right along. , thisng of fences amendment would require the completion of 700 miles of the reinforcement double layered secure described in the fence act and make that a to the actual legalization process as part of a guarantee we would actually follow through. as i indicated earlier, the history of this -- >> is this number nine? >> it is number nine. >> although the bill before us as requiringcated fencing, they say the secretary

should submit a plan for fencing. thethere is nothing in bill that requires any fencing to be completed. in fact, the law we passed in 2007 is specifically required, a specific kind of fence that has never been built. was 300 miles of some kind of fencing, then vehicle barriers, and other kinds of barriers. ,nly really 36 of the defined double fence that gives us maximum protection, which limits dramatically the amount of enforcement necessary, if you are a border troll agent, the better the fencing, the fewer that cross. them longer to breach the fence and you have sensitivity devices that

identify that. fencing does work. it has had a marvelous benefit, as we know in san diego and other areas. this bill does not require any fencing. the secretary has already opined we do not need any more. i will ask her after amnesty has been given to tell us how much , and shee will build will not give us much in my opinion. it will not happen. what the amendment does is strikes a provision requiring the secretary to submit a strategy and it replaces the provisions with language- defining southern border fencing to mean 700 miles in cover layer fencing required in 2006, not 2007. it makes it to of the triggers to adjusting provisional status

to legal, permanent residents. the provisional status would occur, but the permanence would not occur until this part of the act, this requirement, is implicated. the only mention of a fence in this bill does require the secretary to submit a strategy to identify where fencing should be deployed along the border. nothing prevents the secretary from concluding that no additional fencing is necessary, or which vehicle barriers or virtual fencing should be used instead of real fencing. secretary, the amendment is narrow, concentrating on the most important miles along the border and mandated by the secure fence act, which congress insed overwhelmingly 80-19

2006, with the support of then- and vice obama president biden supported it. the majority of americans wanted the old. san diego has seen reductions in illegal crossing since the fencing was installed. the bill authorizes funds --ording to gao, about 25 % 25% of all federal prisons are criminal aliens. these are not being held in the immigration system. these are drug offenses and assaults and that kind. the system is composed of 25% of people, criminal aliens.

i think the state-of-the-art border security defense system should be robust enough and not be easily compromised, but surely some people can break the fence. i do not say it would be 100%. reale talking about a cost, but to achieve border security in the long run, it will save money, reduce the number of agents necessary, and help us achieve the goal. the goal is that this nation send a clear message to the whole world our border is closed, and you will not be successfully entering, and you will be apprehended, there will be punishment, and please do not come that way. if we do that with clarity and the president speaks now, i think we will be in a good position to reach a virtual zero interest policy.

>> mr. chairman? >> i have two questions for my friend in alabama. have you estimated how much this would cost? costs?we pay for those >> we will have to pay for it by reducing spending somewhere. it will cost as much as $6 and it should help us inch the critical mass which the whole cost of illegal immigration efforts will be reduced. i think it could reduce the number of officers. >> that is enough for me. >> thank you. >> i strongly oppose the amendment for a lot of reasons.

first, it flies exactly in the opposite direction of senator cornyn's.-- there are some places where double fencing is needed. i have seen it at the border. there are many places where it would not do much good. expanses where there is nobody there and no roads and nothing else. somebody climbs over the double fence, who will be there to catch them? in those areas, drones and other things do not have adequate personnel to catch the people and are far more effective than a fence. ,ou have many places particularly in texas, where all land is owned privately, right up to the border, so you

would have to go in if the property owner did not want a big fence to prevent its cattle from drinking in the rio grande, if they do that down there. i am not an expert. [laughter] east river. >> not an awful lot of cattle in the east river will -- east river. [laughter] >> but seriously, folks. [laughter] privately owned land. that would take a long time and cost a fortune. in arizona, there is an indian reservation and we have a lot of problems with people crossing the indian reservation. i forgot the indian tribe name. them.

you cannot build a fence there unless they give you permission, which they are not likely to do. that, youu deal with have to patrol along the perimeters between the reservation and the land in the state of arizona. fences will not be any good there and it will be a total waste of money. it will be hard, and we will need long-term negotiation. third is the cost. a minimum of cost is $8 billion. we will find it somewhere. that would take money away from the money we have proposed for other things that might be far more implementation this in the particular sectors. it is varied in so many different ways. we are getting better and better at finding people who cross the border illegally. now we have new tools to be used and applied. to simply demand and eight and $8 billion --

billion when every expert would tell you where exactly to put it because there are many areas, my guess is it would take eight years to 10 years early to have the 700 mile double fence completed if you found the money, if you could do all the negotiations and everything else. that delays anything from happening on the other side for eight years to 10 years. , no people working, no people coming out of the shadows. if it is intended to undo the -- i supposece is it will. i do not see it happening the effect i want and you want, which is to close off the border to people coming in illegally. >> [indiscernible] an expert enough to know one side [indiscernible] this comes close to one-size-

fits-all. >> one response, 600 miles out of it 2000 mile border. fences not attempt to the entire border and does not require fencing where it has no beneficial use. i really do have a bit of it, where we had a vote here and it never really occurred, and i do recall that president obama and viceentered -- president biden did approve it. we can be more sophisticated in what kind of fence can be built. i would be open to discussing that. real fencing reduces personnel, creates a real new approach to our border, and my observation, friends and colleagues, involved in the immigration debate,

which just kind of sort of happened for quite a number of years now, and whatever really works never gets passed. if you complete that, that will be something that will be working in your bill. i give you credit. it has been a battle for many years. the verify should have been done many years ago. there has been no problem with it except those who do not really want to see illegal immigration and, do not really want to see businesses hire only lawful workers that kept it contained. they have also restricted the amount of fencing we have authorized to build and block it over the years. too result, we still have much unlawful immigration at the border. mr. chairman, thank you. if you have a vote, i would appreciate it.

will not ease you about you reaffirming your strong support of senator obama and senator biden voting. [indiscernible]

>> the vote is six yea and twelve nay. senator cornyn, did you have an amendment? >> mr. chairman, i would ask cornyn incineration of cornyn ask consideration of cornyn number one. warning,man, fair this is another border security amendment. this one is different. four members of the gang of eight here. i want to give them credit for several things. regarding border security in

the bill. they recognize the importance of crafting a comprehensive strategy to marshall and deploy assets along the southern order. legislation i introduced prior to the introduction took a similar approach. great minds think alike. second, the sponsors understand we must evaluate border security under specific metrics, not just by throwing money at the problem and hoping for the best. , therech to my surprise is absolutely no trigger in this ill tied to border security. ,- bill tied to border security where we could measure our success. it is absolutely critical we need both of those. we have seen time and time again, as numerous senators have pointed out, where congress has mandated certain negativity -- activity that never seems to

happen. the one that sticks the most -- the worst, is something we extricated in 1996 that still does not exist. i do not know how many times you can promise to do the same thing over and over again and not deliver when people still believe you are serious about it. we all know the bill legalization provision would go and this is simply unacceptable. i would think our colleagues who want to see the bill passed hard toy, we will work make the border security provision as tight as we possibly can because we realize we have a confidence deficit with the american people and we need to regain their confidence and we are actually serious

about this. e-hink, senator durbin, the verify provision is very popular. and humanlers traffickers do not usually verify so we will have to stop them through a border strategy. plug the multiple gaping holes in the border security provisions. first, it would insure the border security triggers in the bill are real, by requiring the department of homeland security and cop role -- con troll or general -- comptroller general to come together. so mine is a little bit different than senator grassley's. i am not saying before the rpi is allowed that this much be complied with. but it certainly must be a trigger before anyone could be allowed to adjust the lawful permanent residents status.

i do not know any practical way we could make sure this will work in the way everyone seems to wish and hope it will. , my amendmentlly would require full situational awareness of the southern border. the deployment of i think it is more helpful rather than to think about the border than the bank about a football field. this would require the dhs to and have a zone defense capable of covering an entire field from sideline to sideline. it would not just to guarantee best wishes, hopes, and aspirations but results. it would mandate the department achievednd security department control of all nine sectors of the southern border including the apprehension rate of at least 90%.

the ganghe same as in of eight bill. this in our national security at risk by only focusing resources on specifically designated border sectors. borderd only require a security strategy for three of the nine sectors on the southern border including two of the five of thes including some most dangerous because of the high traffic of migrants, drug trafficking, human trafficking. this is dangerous because it will tell the cartels, the terrorists and human traffickers had of time about where we have placed our assets and it does not take a genius to say that if this area is hardened, we go to the weaker area less protected,

which the underlying bill would allow. my amendment corrects this line and makes sure our comprehensive border security plan is truly comprehensive and making sure hard data and forms are border security strategy and requires the dhs to develop and utilize new and comprehensive metrics informed by situational awareness to measure success and failure. another important part of this, i know my colleagues on the gang of eight have tried to be created in coming up with the southern border security commission composed of state officials, but this amendment would authorize the commission to act in an advisory capacity immediately, not later. i think it's important given the challenges in our states that state officials be at the table.

the $2 of holding billion set aside for this commission in trust for five years, it would authorize use of these critical resources immediately to secure the border with and allow the dhs to quickly implement this southern border strategy to achieve operational control the border. mention,thing i would and this is consistent with discussions we had earlier, mr. chairman, about the border, if you have a secure border, we still need dates or authorized ports of entry for legitimate trade and commerce. make and men would improvements to streamline southern border strategy including a requirement that the department comment security develop a plan to reduce weight time by 50% at southern border land ports of entry and increase emergency personnel resources and require 10,000 a

customs and border patrol officers and no less of 5000 of which must be border patrol agents. attempt to beest constructed by taking the framework the gang of eight had given us in the bill but offer what i believe are important improvements to make sure that it will actually succeed. the worst thing we could thatbly do is to promise we are once and for all dealing with border security and, in fact, not actually do so in an effective sort of way. i hope my colleagues will give this serious consideration to support the amendment. first, gowant to go ahead. >> i want to support this amendment. i want to remind everybody that the basis of this legislation is

that the border will be secure. fors a whole basis everything working. i think i pointed out this morning, but i do not. this is set up for the border to be secure, yet there's a lot of action that's going to be taken that is reminiscent of what we thought in 1986 when we thought we took away the magnet for people to come to this country for jobs by making it illegal for employers to hire undocumented workers and then put a $10,000 fine on adcare. we did not anticipate a whole industry of fraudulent documents coming along and allowing people to be hired because their documents look authentic and then they were hired and no one was prosecuted. we thought it was in legalizing the

undocumented workers at the time, some say around 3 million people. it did not work, and then you know what happens. i. we also ought to realize there has been a prediction by some people -- i think we also realize more work cost to be done in this area. it seems to me senator cornyn as leading in that direction very strongly. you're going to keep hearing a about how polls susceptible immigration legislation is and how people want it. we all agree the system is fixed.and it ought to be

underlying all of these holes is an understanding that if the border was secure, would you support immigration legislation? the answer comes back pretty strongly, but it is central to what people are thinking out there. in my town meetings, and i have only been in 63 of them yet this to me, why doay any more legislation? why the wind just not enforced the law the way it is now? -- why do we just not enforce the law? explain.icult to consequently, i support this legislation and mails will be done sooner instead of later because of a bill is going to get to the president, border security will be improved over what the group of eight is and i do not detract from anything senator cornyn said about the good work of the group of late, but they all said they did not put a perfect piece of

legislation before us and they thought there were plenty of was a could be improved and this is one of them. >> senator schumer. colleague from texas has made a good-faith effort here. it contradicts the last amendment, which is supported as well, to put 700 miles of fence instead of leaving the flexibility, but it is fatally flawed in three ways. adds, again, without the flexibility that we have been talking about, it adds another 1500 border patrol agents. it does not talk about whether they are paid for and that is several billion dollars. again, $2 billion as a lot of money. second, it puts in a different style trigger than the one we have, a kind of trigger that is not based on specific metrics but on a broad measure of accomplishment and that is not

going to be acceptable, but there are two problems with the trigger in addition. to ngo measure the trigger which is unconstitutional. that means the whole scheme would come down on this. every time a trigger has been put together with the gao makes a determination as to whether it works or not, not a branch of the legislature, it has been knocked out constitutionally. finally, he demands a 90% effectiveness rate for a receptor on the border. sector on the border. the 85 are apprehended and 15 are not and the whole thing falls apart even if it does at 88 or 89% and that is unrealistic. goodte my colleague's

upper tier, a strongly think this amendment should be defeated and if there are no other comments? .> senator cornyn >> the money comes from exactly the same place the money in your proposal comes from. it is money that i believe my constituents would be willing to order along the border and protect our sovereignty and to protect the victims of human trafficking and drug trafficking to come across the border. it is a different type of a trigger because mine works and yours does not. to compel thee department of homeland security and other officials to actually do what this bill tells them we want them to do. timeve passed legislation and time again. one reason why my constituents

and other americans are skeptical is because they did not believe it's actually going to work the way it is advertised. nothing demonstrates this better than the fact that we're going to have gaping holes in border security because this does not require control of all nine sectors but only some. the cartels and transnational criminal organizations to deal in people coming drugs, other contraband are smart enough to know not to drive through the hardened areas, they will come to the weak spots. nothing will change. helpctually trying to colleagues here who want to see a bill passed because i agree with senator grassley. i just cannot imagine unless this meets reasonable expectations in controlling the

illegal flow of drugs across the border that it would be the kind of broad bipartisan support that i know my colleagues hoped for. i hope my colleagues will reconsider and support the amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> yes? cornyntis thanks centre for his hard work. -- i want to thank senator cornyn. i value his judgment and insight. significant, large amendment would clearly strengthen the enforcement in the bill. i'm not sure it does all it , and i intend to vote for it.

chairman, i would like to speak briefly in favor of senator cornyn's amendment and i think it is a positive contribution. , would also note, with regret contrary to the hokusai expressed at the outset of this hearing, the committee has voted down every serious border security amendment that has been hipresented here today. this does not dictate that any technology be deployed on the border whether helicopters, thed wing, or others to fix border.

this lies entirely on a subjective assessments from the secretary of homeland security that have no teeth and no objective metrics. in my view, the current draft presents nearly a fig leaf on border security. in my judgment, the american securewant america to in border security, true with republicans than democrats, red states and blue states. we need to get serious on securing the border. it is with regret that the committee has rejected any attempt to put real teeth in this bill to secure the border. and does not have real border security, in my opinion, this bill will not pass and the proponents who would like to see will have its supporters to blame for rejecting real border security provisions.

>> i appreciate your speech in your view of it. there are many on this committee a totally disagree with your view on what the bill has done. senator durbin? cornyn amendment was adopted by this committee so to suggest that, we adopted a republican amendments and we are open to good ideas from both sides and a bipartisan amendment with your colleague from texas. sorry, senator flake. grassley'sr amendment to extend to all sectors of the border, not just the high risk, the requirement that you get 90% security, that is significant. if it were not significant, senator grassley would not offer it.

he's not in the habit of offering dilatory amendment. and supported by me, too. gao requirement of some of these reports coming out of the department of homeland security. we recognize some time we do not get the full and permission from them that we want to, so it requires that periodic assessment from the jail as well so i would dispute the statement that nothing substantive has been added. >> mr. chairman, i would like to make one point. i'm sorry. >> others wish to speak. senator schumer? part,ator cornyn in large his amendment and what is in the bill are similar. you cannot say there is nothing in border security in the bill went, i suggest this to my good friend from texas, senator kreuz, he says there's no border

saysity -- sen. cruz there's no border security or whenever pejorative term he used. the problem with the cornyn amendment does not do everything we would do one border security. it does not have the flexibility and i think ours is better. the trigger is impossible. we all know the real reason. to aor cruz is opposed path of citizenship. that is the division here. a matter what we put in, he has said this and sell and i respect his view, but he cannot support any bill with a path to citizenship. the differences when the trigger in when you can become a citizen, if at all. let's not keep bringing up this false issue that we do nothing on border security. our bill is tough as nails. it may not go as far as some people like. some people may prefer a fence into drones, but it's really tough.

people toa 9 million earn a path to citizenship after a long tenures with many things that have to do. -- after a long tan of years. that is why in my opinion some on the other side oppose the bill. border security is not the real reason because this bill is very close to the very bill just supported on border security by senator cornyn. >> the senior senator from texas. sk -- add that senator schumer is impugning people's motives and i would just ask you to reconsider. forunderlying bill provides a plan, not a requirement, of security in three of the nine sectors, just three of the nine.

how can that possibly be an effective border security strategy that applies to only one-third of the border? it has holes in it. it leaks. this is ank that fundamental issue, as senator grassley has said, that is a of the public not trusting us. i must tell you that this is not some trick to deny the solution that you want for the 11 million people who are here. this is not a trick. this is a fundamental precondition to regaining the public's confidence that we're going to deliver what we promised and what you promised. i think we need to be careful here but by first describing the motivations of people in terms of how they vote on these different amendments. i would point out objectively, that there are big holes in the underlying bill and we are

trying to plug them. >> let me note that for the record that we have an awful lot of senators, both republicans and democrats, who have worked extraordinarily hard on this bill. in an extremely busy day, where almost every senator in this committee had other committees they were supposed to be in attendance has been superb. i appreciate that very much. theave devoted some of amendments up, some down. thated to make sure everyone was heard who wanted to be heard. further, continue understand senator feinstein has an amendment. senator sessions, you have an amendment to require a roll-call vote? senator grassley, you deny it? -- you do not.

is there further discussion of the cornyn amendment? i think we can finish by 6:00 tonight. cut the senior senator from new york stated that the real reason why i am supporting border security is that i am opposed to a path to citizenship. >> i did not say that. i'm not impugning anyone's node -- motives. rejecting the view that this does nothing on border security which is what you said. i said even if we did everything on border security and the senate passed a citizenship that you would not support it. those are your own words. that's all i said. >> the senior senator from new york did not mean to impugn my intention and the real reason i was supporting border security was because of the path to citizenship, then i accept that clarification. itselford will speak for as to what the senior senator from new york said, but i would like to point out that border

security in the state of texas is not some abstract concept. i would invite any member of this committee to come and join the senior senator from texas and myself on the border in texas to sit down with farmers and ranchers on the border who are dealing with armed coyotes come across their property on daily and weekly basis he no longer locked the doors of their homes because they find them broken into on a regular basis. i invite members of the committee to come down and see pictures of pregnant women and children who tragically died in the desert because of our broken immigration system, a system that invites illegal immigration at the level we have is not a humane system, not fair, not consistent with the rule of law and i believe americans, republicans and democrats across this country, they want the u.s.

government to get serious about securing the border. that is my motivation for these amendments and i very much hope the committee in the senate will make a real steps to solve a problem of illegal immigration rather than simply relying on an .morphous metrics >> the senior senator from texas is not entitled to vote on his amendment. senator grassley. in ae trigger is important few ways. you want to make sure that before people flow in the transition to a permanent legal status that we, on our side, have tried to secure the border as much as possible because the big trade-off here is the practical solution to 11 million, a return to border security, employer verification, and a new system, this is the

big trade-off. i know exactly what senator cornyn is trying to achieve here, a trigger that is a more objectively defined as 90% operation control, and we had a big debate about this among ourselves. we know where he is coming from and we're trying to make sure the trigger is such that you can substantially, completely, within reason, secure the border. the operational control the border metrics verses substantial completion of the plan, i think there's a difference. we had a debate about it. what got me feeling comfortable about the border security plan is that we are able to get the flexibility we never had before. defense idea does not make sense everywhere, so that's an improvement. everything is a trade-off.

there were people dead set on building a 2200-mile fence and for a lot of reasons that will not work. 90% operational control is meant to be a reasonable, verifiable event to verify the border. i get it. i just think the comp -- the layered approach, the compilation, it satisfies me. it may not satisfy senator cornyn. here's what i think we finally found the right mix here. plans don't matter unless they're implemented. you are exactly right. you have to have resources to be able to implement them. it is no small task. in a plan, something we can look at, and completed. to free make the transition legal status is not a fence or operational control but stopping the reason that they come, jobs.

controlling jobs coming you turn everything into a triple. i really do believe -- turn it into a trickle. the implementation of e-verify and guest visas accomplishes the goal, not as much as senator cornyn would like, but i am signing up for this bill leaving i and my colleagues have put in the most to stop this wave of illegal immigration. >> mr. chairman, briefly? >> we are waiting to call the roll, but of course, senator cornyn. >> i appreciate what senator gramm has said and i appreciate the work being done here and the idea of a layered approach makes sense, but each layer have to work. you're not going to catch drug dealers and human traffickers by using e-verify. in a border solution that

actually works. why it so important to remind ourselves that the organization's that traffic people, drugs, and other comp -- contraband are well-organized organizations operating on both sides of the border. the days of having a single person who wants to come to the united states and works across the border without getting proper immigration papers are long gone. talking about organized criminal enterprises that will only be stopped by border security. you can catch economic migrants who come here to work by using e-verify. and we can catch people who come here legally but overstay their visas through an appropriate entry-exit system. it, gaping a big hole literally in the border

control component that neglect the criminal enterprises that penetrate the border to do harm to the american people. i would implore my colleagues to keep that in mind. >> a roll call of the vote. >> mr. schumer. mr. durbin. ms. klobuchar. mr. blumenthal. mr. grassley. mr. cornyn. mr. cruz. mr. flake. >> senator feinstein, and made a

mistake earlier. i thought you had finished your amendment but you have another one? >> or microphone? bythis is co-sponsored senators cornyn, flake, and cruz. i thank them for their support. this has to do with creating some additional border federal judgeships and it would create judgeships andl convert two to permanent, three in the eastern district of california, two in the western district of texas, one in the southern district of texas, and two in arizona. it converts the central district of california to a permanent judgeship, and one in arizona, to permanent status. these are all districts with a

very heavy caseloads in which immigration makes up a big percentage of a criminal files. it is paid for by a $10 increase in civil filing fees as an offset. understand, senator grassley, you have a second agreement? providing58 whistleblower protection for employees of the judicial branch. congress has consistently recognized the value of whistleblowers in government. i co-sponsored the whistleblower protection act of 1989. this amendment would extend protection to the judicial branch employees. gov. schwarzenegger approved a bill august 2010 that did the same thing in the california judicial system, and i would note that this committee

considered senator feinstein's judgeship bill during the last congress and it was accepted. >> senator feinstein, you're willing to except the modification? >> yes. >> your amendment does modified is before us. those before us -- >> mr. chairman? >> there is a first and a second. the senator from alabama. road island. >> i apologize. f >> all the southern states look alike. me and vermont think you are all similar, but go ahead. >> this is a little late in the day to be raising this issue, but it is something i do want to work on before i get to the floor, and i may have an objection to this in a later

course if we do not sort this out. i do not have the information in front of me, but my recollection is in the united ,tates district courts in texas they are now -- there are now four or five vacancies and nominees have been put forward for more than 1000 days in some cases, so to add new judgeships in texas when they are not filling ones for years and years not time, the senators have even put recommendations in for presidential nominees. i would like to, at some point, get some names in for those existing district court vacancies that have sought for years in texas with adding federal judges in texas. i do not see why you need additional judges when there are

multiple vacancies left without nominees for years. i know an immigration judge is different than a district court , but i still have an issue with that and i think it's important we try to get these judgeships build if we're going to add judges in texas. senator cornyn and senator cruz, and may have the numbers wrong, but i think it is four or five vacancies and many of them are over 1000 days without the senate having offered to the white house proposals to be nominated. >> i have an answer for the senator, mr. chairman. >> the president has to nominate someone before we can act on it. it's as simple as that. senator hutchinson retired. . cruz was elected and we created a bipartisan transitional committee.

we were happy to work through these nominations and fill the vacancies, -- >> to have recommended names to the commission? >> we're working on it. what is this, made? -- may? we are working. >> i would be happy to help you. "some like to tie the completion of that project to these new judges. i just do not think it makes sense when there are four or five vacancies open for years and years. >> why don't you tell the white house to nominate people? of recommendations of the senators. at least that's way -- >> de provide a nomination and that is a condition and precedent to the way we act. we tried to work properly with the white house and i hope we will not be punished for that. >> if i could just --

>> the case load is sky high compared to the rest of the country. >> members, if i could just note, based on 38 years' experience here, every judgeship i have seen come through this committee during that time has followed the recommendations by the senators from the state, whether they are the same party or otherwise. and does not mean the white house has to except those recommendations. republican presidents have accepted my recommendations, but you have to have recommendations from the senators, especially since i have been chairman. as the senator from texas has cooperated with the white house and they ask for someone they disagree with and thus, there is -- a blue slip

and i have not brought the person forward even when it has been opportune to do so by the white house. let's not get off the -- >> i could just briefly respond? the chairman has described the practice. we try to work cooperatively, but for some reason the white house thinks that we are not acting expeditiously enough for in good faith. the president under the constitution has the prerogative to nominate someone and we have the responsibility to act on it. we are trying to work cooperatively. >> having to go through all the background and other things required, i do not think the white house is too eager to nominate someone who would not get the approval of the senate. the senator is having a problem, i would be glad to sit down with him and the white house of that

would help. >> mr. chairman? i would note the very briefly to my friend from rhode island that, although it might feel like it, i have not been here anywhere near as long as 1000 days and i'm glad to be working with the senior senator from texas to create a bipartisan advisory commission through the state of respected members of the bar and i look forward to working to ensure that we have men and women and the highest caliber, the highest integrity confirmed to the bench in taxes and throughout the nation -- in texas. >> all in favor of the feinstein amendment as has been amended and by the senator in iowa say aye. >> mr. chairman? i can respond after the voted to give me a second? >> all those in favor say aye. those opposed? >> no/ guest: >> no.

committee, this is a lot of new judges. emigration cases are adding a lot of work to the border but it is notbt, as long as a month long securities case are as big as international drug smuggling cases. analyzing what the numbers mean, the weighted factor, and there is a weighted factor, all i'm saying, senator feinstein, we will be looking at that. i'm sure there is a need for more judges in some of your areas, but whether it is this many, i reserve judgment. >> the only possible amendment is -- >> mr. chairman? >> won by senator sessions.

are you going to bring up another? whitehouse. add about comment to the conversation about judicial need. i happen to have the weighted in need of a judgeship and the top seven, california, northern california, central arizona, but the number one is delaware. i do hope at some point that we will take up some consideration. >> we are greatly overdue to have a new judgeship bill. there are some states with republican senators or democratic senators, but a lot of states. >> i'm glad senator feinstein has accepted the grassley amendment and i commend him for a long leadership on protecting whistle-blowers. i do think there's some potential challenge to the language here that i would love

to discuss with him in more detail. since the last raise this particular point about whistleblower protection, the judicial conference did adopt some model employment rolls that contain was a blower protection language and i would love the opportunity to work with the senator from iowa to harmonize this language to avoid the unintentional complications with the judicial branch and make sure that we are not over legislative with regards. >> i will commit to that. >> thank you. senator whitehouse. >> i offered to work with the senators from texas on this and try to make sure that the process is moving forward smoothly. there are seven united states district court vacancies in texas. waslongest lasting vacancy 2008, by july 16th,

the judge was departing. the judge then departed november 30th, 2008. that's a pretty long time not to work this out, if there's really pressing need for judges in texas. there's a way to work this out before the final bill gets to the floor. 28th,st recent was march 2013, so there is not the same kind of pressure there. i look forward to working with the senators from texas and the committee and senator sessions on the judge's subcommittee to make sure we're handling this in a thoughtful way. >> can make a brief for friendly response? staff thatised by my senator hutchison and i did make recommendations for some of those positions which were not accepted by the white house. that's part of the problem. i will take you up on your

invitation to work together to try to sort through all this. >> thank you. >> just so you know, when we finish this last amendment, by senator sessions, i ask everyone to stay as long as it might take and then we will have completed 32 amendments. take all the time you would like. we are all willing to wait here as long as you would like. >> may ask a question, mr. chairman? i do have an amendment on ports of entry. will i be allowed to offer that before we meet next? i don't have to do it today, but i would like to get it done. >> i did not know you're going to, but yes. we will stay for you to do that. >> i will not detain you long. >> senator sessions. >> mr. chairman, my amendment deals with the weakening of the

current law in the united states to redefine what is required for effectiveness at the border. our colleagues keep saying that this is going to be a tougher bill to strengthen the law. senator schumer said it will be tougher than nails, but it is not tougher than current law. it weakens current law. no doubt about it. i wanted to mention that. second, let me suggest that we are kind of seeing the train at work here. all experienced and. the gang of eight has met and they came together and met with the people they selected. meet withic ice agents, but others they wanted. they did not meet with texas

sherriffs or other offices. offered ayn significant and positive amendment that i hoped would have had strong support and been accepted, but the gang stock together, as we have been told they would come on anything that would significantly impact their of legislation they drafted with their friends. that's what it is. i know it and everyone needs to know it. who's calling the shots? the current law requires that operational control means 100% operational control on the border. we know this. border patrol apprehensions log from april 2nd, 2013, has not been made available to the public for

congress. the secretary should be aware of the information and the charts are produced every day and they give a lot of important information. today iswe are seeing really explosive with regards to the border. it shows that apprehension on the southwest border have been going up for the last two years. you heard it said it has been going down, but apprehensions are going up at the border. it shows five southwest border sectors are surging in activity. the tucson sector is almost always double the activity. about one has not gone up so is currentlyexas expanding significantly. for example, the southwest border apprehension in 2011 were 165,000. in 2012, 170,000.

2013, 192,000. you say things are getting better and better, but they are not. the amount of marijuana seized 1.27 2 million. in 2013, 1.3 3 million. seenour texas sectors have a significant increase in apprehension numbers in comparison to the same last year. rio is up 27%,l laredo, and the rio grande up 53%. us creating are metric that overrides the definition of operational control in current law and it says, not 100% but 90% and effectiveness rate, which is not

90% of total crossings but only those of border patrol and counters. "thes to be 90% only in high risk sectors." we have dealt with that, i hope. 100% but 90%it effectiveness and it has been modified. is a step back from what was offered in 2007 when the border trigger was a difficult and more demanding and the trigger had to be met before illegal aliens could receive even a temporary non immigrant visa. under this bill, unlike 2007, as in the bill is passed, there will be a temporary rpi and the promise of enforcement in the future. >> would the senator like a roll

call? >> mr. chairman, you have been patient with us. realize thatne to we are retreating from the current standards of operational control on the border by this bill, if passed. we should maintain current law, not weaken this law, and i urge support for my amendment and i asked for a roll-call vote. >> the clerk will call a role. call the roll. [indiscernible]

>> 6 yea's 12 nay.s is not agreednt to. the senator from minnesota and haveenator from new york been voted not being present. did you have another amendment? please go ahead. willfy could check, this be the last amendment? what you have completed this amendment -- once we have completed this amendment -- >> the last four today. >> then it will be completed. i do not mean to be facetious.

i really appreciate the cooperation of all the senators. i know many of you have had a lot much longer speeches you intended to give and you have kept them short on both sides of the aisle and i appreciate it because i think all boss want to have our amendments heard, voted on, and presented. senator cornyn. >> i ask for consideration of amendment two with regards to ports of entry. the state's comprehensive approach to addressing the needs in our nation's port of entry which play a critical role. like we said earlier, the ports of entry are the gates that facilitate legitimate commerce, so important to job creation in america and in our trading partners, but these are also security portals of the well. all the personnel who serve at

the ports of entry should be thought of as dual-use, not just facilitating trade but also security. in my view, the underlying bill needs to be beefed up when it comes to staffing and infrastructure at these facilities. obviously, my concern is principally at the southwest border, but it's true throughout our nation's borders. any attempt to achieve measurable success in border security will be undermined unless we improve and update our international chokepoints. this offers a common-sense, responsible solution to fix the bills shortfall by attacking this on -- attacking this on a number of fronts. this would prioritize resources and cutting the wait times at our international ports of entry. wait times and the associated delays of commercial pat -- passenger traffic are a serious inhibitor of economic growth.

second, it would serve as a downpayment toward improving operations at the ports. my amendment would require an essential 5000 -- an additional 5000 streamline the process for those seeking the demint trade through our ports. these are dual-use personnel. the risk for economic analysis of terrorism completed a study last month that said the addition of just one cbp officer adds $2,000 to u.s. gdp and saves times and creates jobs because of the benefit of facilitating bilateral trade. border coalition believes and estimates an additional 5000 cbp officers would result in a $1 billion net

increase in our national g.d.p. this provides investments in next-generation technology and advanced communication to assure all tools are utilized in pursuit of greater part safety and security. this does provide a full off set of all of these emergency resources and i am confident that a dynamics corp. by the cbo will correctly consider the potential economic benefits of strengthening our ports and conclude that this amendment represents a great return on investment for the federal government. this amendment, finally, provides for the possibility of public-private partnerships allowing local governments and the private sector to help in paying for some of this infrastructure protection at our ports of entry while allowing the federal government and officials to maintain control. neglect by the federal

government of these ports of entry, which have long been neglected and underfunded in terms of infrastructure and staffing would be a costly mistake and one we cannot afford. i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> i would like to speak to it, if i might? just quickly, i would like to say, you may have something here. >> i hope so. a i dismissed the effort of public-private partnership, but as i think about it, it makes sense. there's a lot of business that can be added and there are people who would like to invest in mortar infrastructure. -- border infrastructure. the question, why not? the score on this is so high, that i would be happy to work with you to see if we cannot work out something where you can have public-private investment score isrder where the

lower. several billion dollars. would you be willing to do that? >> i always enjoy working with the senator from california. i would love to do that. i am unaware of any score on this bill. whatm told the cost is -- did you say? >> the point of dynamic scoring, which the cbo is going to do on this, it is a net economic benefit that would far exceed any cost. >> the unofficial omb estimate is $14 billion. a secret score unbeknownst to me. we would be glad to work with you on this. if the sponsors of the underlying piece of legislation would work with us, this is not just something that touches texas and california but also arizona and northern ports of entry as well. i think there is concern all

around. >> the senator from new york. >> i agree with senator feinstein. withve been to nogales senator flake gather clearly needs to be worked on these ports of entry to make these both more secure and help commerce. even before the omb estimate which just came one hour ago, $14 billion, this would have cost about $10 billion, $6 billion to do it and $1.50 billion per year by several years and another four billion to maintain it. that's a bit beyond what we can afford, but to lower the cost, keep the concept, and focus particularly on southern ports of entry makes a good deal of sense and i would love to work with senator feinstein, senator cornyn, and senator flake as well. senator session as recognized for two minutes and then senator

klobuchar, that senator cornyn, and then we can vote. >> this is something i have come to understand and feel strongly about. we have about 20,000 some odd border patrol agents at our borders and ports, but only 5000 ice agents in the interior of the united states and the they have other duties other than enforcement. they are the ones who actually up to go through the process of deporting people. they visit jails. after identify a person and put them through the deportation process. they have to haul prisoners. historically, they have sought businessesestigated to illegally higher workers who are not in the country lawfully. that has all been basically

undermined. , theirhis administration enforcement abilities howled collapsed. when they go out to do something, aggressively, they get complaints. did air raid of a business and found a bunch of illegal workers. president obama, right after he took office, criticized the them, criticized the leadership, said it would not happen again, and have not done? sens. presumably it was to put pressure to provide amnesty. i don't know. passes,lation particularly if it passes, we are moving to a situation in which we cannot take the position that once someone gets past the border that they are home free and can never be deported. that's basically the position we are operating from today. it's wrong.

filed athe ice agents lawsuit saying secretary napolitano's policies direct them not to do what law requires a under many circumstances. deportation is required, yet you are supposed to initiate a guideline that basically tell the agents not to do it. a judge has preliminarily upheld the complaint saying the secretary cannot override the law, but this is an administration that has an attorney general who apparently to deal the mechanisms with people here unlawfully allow them to claim a civil right to citizenship. secondary amendment would be to add and strengthen the ice agents to give them more resources because it is time for

us to recognize that interior enforcement cannot be abandoned. >> senator klobuchar then senator cornyn. >> i have not looked at senator sessions's addition, but we're still looking out the scoring on trying to finish this out, so i'm not prepared to vote on this yet. on the northern border side, canada is the number one trading partner for our country and anything we can do to speed up trading is important. i would love to work with you going forward. we have a similar innovative thing we're going with the river act where they can pay more fees to pick the dams. we have to look at this creative financing going forward for our infrastructure, including our ports of entry.